Hubbard v. RCM Techs. (U.S.)

• Decision Date: 28 October 2021
• Docket Number: 19-cv-6363-YGR
• Parties: Rhonda Hubbard, Plaintiff, v. RCM Technologies (USA), Inc., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

Rhonda Hubbard, Plaintiff,
v.
RCM Technologies (USA), Inc., Defendant.

No. 19-cv-6363-YGR

United States District Court, N.D. California

October 28, 2021

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARD; JUDGMENT

RE: DKT. NOS. 44, 45

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

The Court previously granted a motion for preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement in this matter on May 12, 2021. (Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (“Preliminary Approval Order”), Dkt. No. 43.) As directed by the Preliminary Approval Order, on July 6, 2021, plaintiff filed her unopposed motion for attorney’s fees, costs, and service award. (Dkt. No. 44.) Thereafter, plaintiff filed her unopposed motion for final settlement approval on September 21, 2021. (Dkt. No. 66.) The Court held a hearing on October 26, 2020.

Having considered the motion briefing, the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the arguments of counsel, and the other matters on file in this action, the Court Grants the motion for final approval. The Court finds the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable. The provisional appointments of the class representative and class counsel are confirmed. The motion for attorney’s fees, costs, and service award is also Granted. The Court Orders that class counsel shall be paid $375,000.00 in attorney’s fees and $7,661.91 in litigation costs and that class representative and named plaintiff Rhonda Hubbard shall be paid a $10,000.00 incentive award.

I. Background

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed the putative class action complaint on October 4, 2019, alleging that defendant, a healthcare staffing company, underpaid employees staffed on travel assignments in California by excluding the value of weekly per diem and stipend payments from the “regular rate” when calculating overtime pay. (Dkt. No. 1.) The complaint asserts California state law claims for (1)

1

unpaid overtime under California Labor Code § 510, (2) unfair business practices under California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq., and (3) waiting time penalties under California Labor Code § 203. (Id.) Defendant denied any liability. (Dkt. No. 11.) Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on August 18, 2020, which defendant generally did not oppose but for a limited request to modify certain language in the proposed class notice. (Dkt. Nos. 30, 31.) The Court granted the motion on October 20, 2020, certifying the following class: “All non-exempt hourly employees employed by RCM Technologies (USA), Inc. in California who, at any time within four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit through the date of class certification, worked one or more workweeks in which they were paid overtime and received a weekly per diem or stipend.” (Dkt. No. 35.)

Following class certification but prior to the issuance of the class notice, the parties reached a settlement with the assistance of experienced mediator Michael Loeb. The Settlement Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, the terms of which are incorporated herein unless specifically stated otherwise, defines the class as: “[A]ll non-exempt hourly employees employed by RCM Technologies (USA), Inc. in California who, at any time within four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit through the date of class certification on October 20, 2020, worked one or more workweeks in which they were paid overtime and received a weekly per diem or stipend.” (Agreement ¶ 10.) The settlement does not involve the certification of a new class.

In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court provisionally appointed Hayes Pawlenko LLP as Class Counsel, plaintiff Rhonda Hubbard as class representative, and ILYM Group Inc. as the settlement administrator. (Dkt. No. 43.)

B. Terms of the Settlement Agreement

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, defendant will pay $1,500,000.00 into a common settlement fund, without admitting liability. This amount includes attorney’s fees and costs, the cost of settlement administration, and the class representative’s service award. However, the fund is exclusive of the employer’s share of payroll taxes.

2

1. Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Under the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to seek up to $500,000.00 in attorney’s fees and no more than $20,000.00 in litigation costs. The common settlement fund also includes a provision for $15,000.00 in settlement administration costs; and up to $10,000.00 to be paid to plaintiff Rhonda Hubbard as a service award in exchange for a general release of all claims against defendants.

2. Class Relief

After deductions from the common fund for fees, costs, and service incentive awards as well as the administration expenses, approximately $1,092,343.14 will remain to be distributed among the participating class members.^[1] This amount will be divided among the class members, pro rata, based on the No. of overtime hours each class member worked in California during weeks in which the class member received a per diem payment between October 4, 2015 and the date of preliminary approval. Dividing this amount across the 307 class members yields an average recovery of approximately $3,558.12 per class member. The Settlement Agreement provides that no amount will revert to defendant.

3. Cy Pres/Remainder

The Settlement Agreement does not provide for cy pres distribution of unclaimed...